AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00258
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Air Force (AF) Form 707, Officer Performance Report
(OPR), rendered for the period 1 Mar 09 through 28 Feb 10, be
removed from his records and replaced with two different OPRs;
one for the period 1 Mar 09 through 22 Sep 09, and the other for
the period 23 Sep 09 through 22 Sep 10.
2. His corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB)
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel
(Lt Col) by the CY 11 Line and Health Professions Lt Col
Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An improper change of reporting official (CRO) date resulted in
him receiving a referral OPR for missing his annual Fitness
Assessment (FA). He changed jobs and supervisors during the
reporting period and his organization backdated the effective
date of the CRO to avoid writing an OPR. This change kept the
initial period of supervision under 180 days. The back dating of
the OPR caused him to miss his annual FA and resulted in his
referral OPR. The OPR in question does not accurately reflect
his duty or supervisors. The referral OPR caused his non-
selection to Lt Col.
In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded
statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel
record, which include performance reports, Air Force Forms (AF)
IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, as well as
letters of support from his current rating chain.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in
the rank of major (0-4).
On 17 May 10, the applicant participated in an FA and attained a
passing score.
In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program,
Chapter 2, Air Force members must participate in a fitness
assessment at least bi-annually in order to remain current. The
AFI further states service members are responsible for
maintaining currency standards. In addition the failure of a
service member to remain current or achieve a passing score
before the end of the performance report reporting period will
result in a “DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS” rating on the service
member’s OPR/EPR if, as the closeout date of the performance
report, currency or a passing score is not obtained.
On 6 Dec 09, the applicant became non-current in accordance with
the provisions of AFI 36-2905 and remained non-current until
participating in a FA on 28 Feb 10.
According to an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training
Action, dated 1 Dec 09 the applicant was reassigned from OSF
Position 04538481L to 731AS position 04558051L, effective
15 Jun 09.
According to an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training
Action, dated 31 Oct 11, the applicant was reassigned from OSF
Position 04538481L to 731AS position 04558051L, effective
23 Sep 09.
On 20 Aug 10, the contested OPR was rendered upon the applicant
for the period 1 Mar 09 through 28 Feb 10.
The applicant’s OPR profile as major is as follows:
PERIOD ENDING
28 Feb 06
28 Feb 07
29 Feb 08
28 Feb 09
*28 Feb 10
28 Feb 11
29 Feb 12
*Referral Report
The applicant did file an appeal with the Evaluations Report
Appeals Board (ERAB). However, the ERAB was not persuaded the
contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied his request.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
OVERALL EVALUATION
Meets Standard (MS)
MS
MS
MS
Does Not MS
MS
MS
2
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB recommends denial noting there is no evidence of support
from the applicant’s original rating chain indicating the report
in question was erroneous or unjust. Furthermore, there is no
evidence the applicant changed organizations for duty performance
nor does his Duty Assignment History reflect a change in
assignment or the effective date of the change in assignment from
731 ALS to the 302d. The Fitness Testing completion record
provided by the applicant shows he was five months past due on
his annual test, and that since 2008 he has been consistently
late in accomplishing his fitness testing.
The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In support of his request the applicant provided a letter from
his former squadron commander who was the primary rater on the
OPR in question. The applicant further points out that the
Reviewing Official for the referral report is the Reviewing
Official for the two replacement OPRs. His Wing Commander
supports replacing the one OPR with two others. His Wing
Commander thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in this case and
agrees that an injustice occurred. The Wing Commander is willing
to sign the two replacement OPRs, which in the applicant’s mind,
is as much an endorsement of his case as any letter he could
write. His Wing Commander did not take this case lightly - he
understands the impact fitness testing has in our current Air
Force culture, and the removal of an OPR with a fitness related
referral in it is not something he is willing to allow unless the
circumstantial evidence clearly demonstrates a need to do so.
The evaluation by the Office of Primary Responsibility stated
"There is nothing in the applicant's AFBCMR package or in his
record to show that he changed organizations for duty
performance." He believes this was based on the 7 Feb 12 Single
Unit Retrieval Format (SURF), which was not accurate. He has
attached an updated SURF, which accurately reflects his duty
history, and no longer includes a 15 Jun 09 CRO date. Also, the
AF Form 2096 has been filed, and the proper date of 27 Sep 09 for
the CRO is now reflected in his duty history. The CRO from
27 Sep 09 should have generated an OPR. The evaluation further
states "Failure of the rating chain to document conduct that
departs from Air Force core values does a disservice to all
others competing for promotion." He agrees that proper
documentation is a necessary part of our rating/promotion system
and believes this has occurred in his case. However, the
appropriate documentation for an overdue fitness test is not a
referral OPR. No one in the Air Force today is being given a
referral OPR simply for allowing their fitness test due date to
3
expire. The reason the referral OPR exists, as it pertains to
fitness, is to document a failure to pass the test itself, or
failure to accomplish the test during the OPR reporting cycle.
If an OPR closes out without having a satisfactory fitness test
accomplished during the OPR effective dates, then a referral is
required - it doesn't matter whether the member simply didn't
take the test, or whether they took it 10 times and couldn't pass
it. The end result is the same referral OPR. In his case, he
has never failed the fitness test since entering the Air Force in
1995. He was given a referral OPR because he was overdue for the
test and didn't have a valid score by the closeout date of 28 Feb
10, but he should have never had an OPR that closed out on that
date. His OPR reporting cycle should have changed on or about
27 Sep 09.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The
applicant believes that his command’s action to select a change
of reporting official (CRO) effective date so as not to generate
an OPR in conjunction with his reassignment resulted in his
receiving the contested referral officer performance report
(OPR). However, after a thorough review of the evidence of
record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his
response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not convinced he was
the victim of an error or injustice. Even if we assume for the
sake of argument that the applicant’s record should be
reconstructed in the way he requests, the fact the applicant
allowed himself to become non-current in his fitness assessment
for over five months in violation of AFI 36-2905 would continue
to form the legitimate basis for a referral OPR, regardless of
the period for which it was rendered. The applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence
presented sufficient to convince us that his referral OPR was the
result of anything other than his lack of due diligence in
ensuring he remained current in his FA in accordance with the
prescribing instruction. Therefore, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s)
4
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-00258 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 14 Feb 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 12, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
Member
Member
Panel Chair
5
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00540
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The referral report he received was unjustly rendered as a “3” in violation of numerous requirements of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The contested report should not have been a referral report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 01883
She states that the MTF failed to initiate an AF Form 469 in a timely manner, and that she was not placed on a FA exemption until Nov 10. SAF/IG also states that Because these abnormal X-ray results were not communicated to her until Oct 10, almost a year later, she dutifully continued to comply with the muscular plan of care treatments that resulted in an Air Force FA failure for pushups, even with continuing symptoms. In fact, the applicant achieved a perfect score of 10/10 points on...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05833
After the FA the applicant visited his medical provider and was given a corrected profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to void/remove the FA dated 25 Jan 13. While the AFI does state that a member who is using albuterol medication should be exempt on the walk component, the applicant did not provide justification that would prove he was taking the medication at the time of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00804
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 31 January 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02502
His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04745
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04745 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 24 Apr 10, she petitioned the AFBCMR (Docket Number BC-2010- 02102) to void her referral EPR for the period 18 Oct 07 through 28 Oct 08, contending she was not given sufficient time to adjust to the new workout plan given to her by her doctors. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05244
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the reporting period 14 Mar 09 through 13 Mar 10, be declared void and removed from her military personnel records. At the time, there were no provisions that authorized the one- mile walk component...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04468
Finally, the applicant did not provide any additional supporting documentation to consider, i.e., commanders invalidation, AF Form 422, etc. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to void and remove the FAs dated 22 Feb 11, 1 Mar 11, and 22 Jun 11. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM and AFPC/DPSIDE evaluations is at Exhibit B and Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00365
Her referral 4 EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures and should therefore also be removed from her records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). The applicant contends that because she had a medical condition that unfairly precluded her from attaining passing fitness...